City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[Citizen of Legoland]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

In the press this morning that PSG have 'done a deal' with UEFA which will be kept 'confidential'


this stinks...........

I was wondering how Platini was going to fuck us over and still manage to protect PSG. If does remain confidential and we have no way of knowing how our sanctions compare to theirs then surely we have to take legal action.

Can't see how it can remain confidential if other clubs in the same league can challenge any compromise. To do that they need to know what the compromise was in the first place. UEFA would need to be transparent here.

Perhaps if UEFA play hardball with us, releasing full details of our fines and restrictions, but handle PSG with respect and keep information hard to come by, they'll force City to challenge PSG's punishment (not that it should get that far).

My take on all this is that UEFA feel dwarfed by the new owners and need a rapid input of new funds in order to feel comfortable dealing with Kings and Princes. They are effectively pimping themselves out to the highest bidder(s). If City and PSG do decide to pay up (unlikely), then UEFA will become 'our' bitches as long as we ensure all future FFP violations are punished to the same extent. It may be worth negotiating with UEFA to ensure we get a bigger control of European football in return for us paying up and not proceeding legally, which I feel could divide European football long term. For a start, we must demand the removal of competing team's influence in the areas of policy and punishment.

It's not the Arab way, but it appears to be the European way.

 

[Balti]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I was wondering how Platini was going to fuck us over and still manage to protect PSG. If does remain confidential and we have no way of knowing how our sanctions compare to theirs then surely we have to take legal action.

Can't see how it can remain confidential if other clubs in the same league can challenge any compromise. To do that they need to know what the compromise was in the first place. UEFA would need to be transparent here.

Perhaps if UEFA play hardball with us, releasing full details of our fines and restrictions, but handle PSG with respect and keep information hard to come by, they'll force City to challenge PSG's punishment (not that it should get that far).

My take on all this is that UEFA feel dwarfed by the new owners and need a rapid input of new funds in order to feel comfortable dealing with Kings and Princes. They are effectively pimping themselves out to the highest bidder(s). If City and PSG do decide to pay up (unlikely), then UEFA will become 'our' bitches as long as we ensure all future FFP violations are punished to the same extent. It may be worth negotiating with UEFA to ensure we get a bigger control of European football in return for us paying up and not proceeding legally, which I feel could divide European football long term. For a start, we must demand the removal of competing team's influence in the areas of policy and punishment.

It's not the Arab way, but it appears to be the European way.

uefa in backhander sweetener shocker?

 

[Robinho's Subbuteo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The thing I find incomprehensible about FFPR is that it is intended to prevent ALL clubs from spending beyond their means for the good of the game, so why does it only kick in if you play in European competition? What about clubs spending beyond their means that don't qualify, i.e. Monaco, Liverpool?

 

[bluemoondays]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

They are setting an interesting precedent here. If the fine for failing to meet FFP is 50% of the alleged overspend then that could seriously cripple any other club wanting to invest by producing a CL quality team and all the other clubs (which are hardly getting a mention) should also be getting hit with similar levels of fines. It will be interesting to see Liverpools books when they get assessed for FFP and how much they are under or overspent.

Regardless, as many people have said the punishment doesn't match the crime. We have demonstrated a huge improvement in our overall finances over the last two years and I thought showing this sort of demonstrable improvement was supposed to be a mitigating factor for FFP.

How is it good for a club which is struggling to comply with FFP to be hit with huge fines? In our case, if our owner wished, he could probably afford to pay this. The vast majority of other clubs wouldn't be able to cover this sort of punishment and it could easily push a lot of clubs into bankruptcy.

I really hope we tell them to stuff it and take this all the way to highest level of European courts...............

 

[marios chicken hat is the best]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I love the go to war mentality let's go and fight regardless of the consequences, regardless of what the end result is. It's so George Dubya and to be fair it's what most people thought in 1914.

You don't fight footballs governing body, all the other clubs, the media etc without everybody losing in the end including us.

UEFA can fight dirty and cause so much damage that wen if we win in the end we will have lost.

Honestly would you today accept the break up of this team, years of chronic publicity (20x worse than today) to end up winning a fine that won't go to city and potentially breaking apart a game and turning football into a European form of gridiron with 20 super teams and no promotion relegation etc

People need to think about the consequences to us and football of going to war with the game and going to war with football as they could be far wider and worse than imagined.

In 1914 people wanted war, a tidy quick victory and 100m people died . A footballing war could have war wider consequences that kill much of what people love in the game and that may be more unpallatable than an immaterial fine and a but if harm to our champs league prospects for one season

What a load of rubbish. I have no doubt that City will challenge the decision and take a fruitless attempt to the Court of Arbitration for Sport after a summer of bullshit surrounding our potential champions league exclusion. Then I would like to see FFP taken to the European Court of Justice the same way Bosman did.

The ECJ has power to apply treaty provisions to Sport and in particular Competition law. It seems to me that FFP is clearly in breach of numerous competition laws and not the best way of achieving the aim! So it would be foolish not to fight considering the ECJ's power. The only issue in doing this would be the potential length of time a ruling could take.


Also if we were to win it could only be good for football as there would be no FFP and MORE COMPETITION. Bad for the big clubs and ruffle a few feathers!

My take on things.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Someone called David Bick on SSN now calling the 'leaked' figure of £50m as outrageous.

Wants us to take on UEFA in court, if figure is true.

 

[Marvin]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The key for me is what happens next time around.

The monitoring periods will then be

2011/2 Published loss £99m
2012/13 Published loss £51m
2013/14 Expecting to break-even

We are allowed a deficit of around £35m.

That 201/12 season does not drop out of the calculation...they just include the current season

But as we know it's not the headline losses that count as there are exclusions. It sounds like we have ended up with a much bigger deficit than we expected because we have been unable to deduct the £100m pre 2010 contracts. So can we pass next time around, and if not, what are the likely sanctions based on what is being proposed now?

In 2 years time, there would be no problem - but can we get through the next 12 months?

My concern too

Marvin did anyone answer you in case I missed it?

No I didn't

But it's on my mind. Unfortunately I am at work

I was thinking the starting point would be to take the rumoured sanction per b/even deficit (using the figures from Ed T's Financial Fair Play site) and mutiply that by our projected loss over the 3 monitoring periods to come. But it would be be an estimate

 

[Chris in London]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The thing I find incomprehensible about FFPR is that it is intended to prevent ALL clubs from spending beyond their means for the good of the game, so why does it only kick in if you play in European competition? What about clubs spending beyond their means that don't qualify, i.e. Monaco, Liverpool?

FFP is plainly not about spending beyond your means, and it is time we nailed this fiction.

PSG have not spent beyond their means, or at least not to the extent that UEFA have decided if the press reports are to be believed. Neither have we.

Our 'means' and PSG's actually involve payments from third parties that UEFA have disallowed. What they cannot disallow is the undisputed fact that PSG have actually received a very large sum of money from Qatar. We have actually received a very large sum of money from Etihad and from the sale of IP rights.

How can it be spending beyond your means to actually spend what your club receives in sponsorship, no matter how closely related the sponsor and the owner? If FFP was intended to stop clubs from spending beyond their means, the power to disallow all or part of related party transactions would not be in the rules. 'Not spending beyond your means' is essentially a fig leaf trotted out to give a veneer of modesty to FFP's true objectives.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The thing I find incomprehensible about FFPR is that it is intended to prevent ALL clubs from spending beyond their means for the good of the game, so why does it only kick in if you play in European competition? What about clubs spending beyond their means that don't qualify, i.e. Monaco, Liverpool?

All you need to know about FFP is that it is the twisted brain child of an Napolean complexed anglophobe, who has then got a cartel of equally jealousy consumed self protectionists to support him; no matter how illogical and irrational the idea is.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Someone called David Bick on SSN now calling the 'leaked' figure of £50m as outrageous.

Wants us to take on UEFA in court, if figure is true.

Does he think they might shave a few million off the fine?